We should privatize the fire department

  1. Advertisement
  2. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Well-Known Member

    Way, way, way, way too long to read. But no.
    tommy_ed likes this.
  3. Dark Jedi

    Dark Jedi Guest

    When you privatize something then it becomes something that has to turn a profit. THis is just local government passing the problem to someone else. I heard of the private prisons over on AZ as being horrible.
  4. nlsme

    nlsme Well-Known Member

    Yea, no.
  5. Private fire departments are already saving local governments tons of money.
  6. Dark Jedi

    Dark Jedi Guest

    But what is the cost to the public to get the service?
  7. $75 per year
  8. No, no they are not. Private fire departments will cost more in loses and problems to the community then save money.

    History has shown that private protective public services fail because they have to be for profit.

    But let us look at what the real numbers are.

    To hire a fire protection for a medium size town, and be able get the cheapest (minimum wage) for your dollar it would cost 47,000 dollars per person, assuming the person worked 24 hours a day, 7 day a week, 365 days a year, this assumes that you would hire 4 people, to form 1 24 hour fire fighter.

    Now you would need to have 30 firefighters (for fast response for large fires) on call very second of every day, of every year to equal the protection the volunteer. To get that kind of protection, you would need to get $1,410,000 a year, just to keep people around to tackle most of the problems for a medium size city. Most medium cities budget is about $1,000,000. So to offer minimum protection man hour wise for a medium size city, you would run past the budget by the city in just paying the people minimum wage.

    How do they get around this in the public sector, volunteers, something that will not happen with private networks.

    If you just google private sector fire protection, you will see where this will fail again and again.

    Private sector can do a lot of great things, but in somethings, like public protection and transportation is not one of them.
  9. Vihzel

    Vihzel Destroying Balls Everyday VIP Member

    Wow that article was from 1992... almost 20 years ago. We've seen how far it's gotten since then. heh
  10. Dark Jedi

    Dark Jedi Guest

    maybe he couldnt find a more current dated version to back his claim. So 1992 had to do. :confused:
  11. It's not everyday that somebody writes an extensive essay on the topic.
  12. nlsme

    nlsme Well-Known Member

    Maybe that should tell you something?
  13. ElasticNinja

    ElasticNinja Well-Known Member

    Watch as arson increases by 900%
    You already made a mess of your prisons...
  14. alostpacket

    alostpacket Over Macho Grande? VIP Member

    We privatized EMS in my area and last year I had a relative who needed rushing to the hospital (they ended up being fine though).

    Long story short, the ambulence ride was several thousand dollars and our taxes are no lower than they were before and it was not covered by medical insurance.

    So if your house catches on fire, just wait for the bill to really get you burning...

    (ok that last pun was terrible, sorry)
  15. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Well-Known Member

  16. gibbga

    gibbga Well-Known Member

    There are so many things wrong with this. The idea of privatizing gov't jobs is for cost savings. Where I live in GA, several new cities were established in the past few years. I believe almost all of them privatized their respective services (except for Fire and Police). Now after a few years, most of them are starting to backpedal away from this idea of privatizing because they've found that they aren't getting the level of service they desired.

    I know the idea of privatizing sounds good on paper, but to me it is the equivalent of shipping jobs to India because they can do it more cheaply. In the end, what you are talking about is people. You are saying to someone that you are not worth paying "X" amount a year to do this job. Instead I can hire XYZ company to find employees to fill your position, so that I no longer am burdened with paying your salary, healthcare, retirement, etc. So rather than giving you a lifelong job where you are rewarded for staying somewhere for low pay for 30+ years (and for fire dept...risking your life at that) by receiving retirement benefits and maintaining the institutional knowledge that XYZ company will never be able to match with their constant turnover, I'd rather find someone to do it for even less, give them no retirement benefit, all while allowing XYZ company to find a way to make a profit.

    Yea, you sir, are going to have one hell of a bonfire. Because the way the private company is going to turn a profit is to hire young, less knowledgeable people at a lower cost. Then they are going to hire fewer people to fill the positions, because they have to improve their cost model. So good luck with that.
  17. nlsme

    nlsme Well-Known Member

    Or better yet, what happens when they go bankrupt?
  18. Ambulance services are public here, and hospitals have to treat you even if you don't have insurance in an emergency. You still get billed thousands for it all, though.

    Then you don't get fire services.
  19. nlsme

    nlsme Well-Known Member

  20. lordofthereef

    lordofthereef Well-Known Member

    That isn't really a viable option in many parts of the country. Have you seen cities where houses on cookie cutter blocks are right next to one another. So my neighbor doesn't want to pay for fire services. My house gets to burn to the ground too?
  21. If you pay and he doesn't, you'll get service.
  22. nlsme

    nlsme Well-Known Member


    And, I think LOTR is saying, his neighbor, who's house is actually connected to his, has a small kitchen fire, but since he doesn't want to pay for services, the fire spreads. It then spreads to his house, wich the fire dept CAN'T put out, because they are only willing to fight half the fire. Thus, burning down HIS house too.
    lordofthereef likes this.
  23. ElasticNinja

    ElasticNinja Well-Known Member

    What about all the people who cant afford it...

    This isnt like charging for water.. its not going to reduce the use of the services. In fact the new fire lobby will probably lobby for less fire regulations
  24. lordofthereef

    lordofthereef Well-Known Member

    There is still a large hole in your theory bud. If a house is burning down next to mine and it is NOT getting serviced, that puts my home in a way WAY higher danger even if mine IS getting serviced. Simply put you don't want an unattended fire burning your neighbors house down even if your own house is being doused with water. My possessions (and my life) are safer with my neighbors house being serviced as well. Make sense?

    EDIT: as was mentioned above, let's talk about a town home, apartment, or condo fire. Seems I would be proper f'd if my downstairs neighbor refused to be serviced and his house lit on fire as he fell asleep at the tv smoking.
  25. If you don't pay for a service, you don't get the services. I'd be willing to listen to a subsidy program for the low income, though.

Share This Page